Memeorandum

February 11, 2005

Now Why Did They Listen To The Daily Kos?

The NY Times, a couple of Congressional Democrats, and Josh Marshall are all relying for the inside skinny on "Jeff Gannon" as presented by the Daily Kos.

There is just the smallest of small problems - on the most incendiary tidbit, The Lost Kos folks have precious little evidence. ["Gannon" Speaks! See UPDATE]. Which means that the Times has fallen overboard.

Let's start with the Times:

Two Democrats in Congress are pressing for investigations into how a Washington reporter who used a pseudonym managed to gain access to the White House and had access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.

The Democrats, Representatives John Conyers Jr. of Michigan and Louise M. Slaughter from Rochester, wrote yesterday to Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent prosecutor appointed in the Plame case, seeking an investigation into how the reporter, James D. Guckert, who used the name Jeff Gannon, had access to classified documents that revealed the identity of Ms. Plame.

Well. The Plame connection is quite exciting. No "alleged", no "reportedly", no hedging at all - "Gannon" had access to classified documents, in two separate paragraphs. Let's see how Josh Marshall described it:

Of particular interest, to me at least, is just how 'Gannon' managed to have access to classified documents relating to the Plame matter. It's not uncommon for journalists to get hold of classified materials. But given the dynamics of that story and how much the White House was gunning for Wilson, it's awfully odd that he would have had this stuff come into his hands for what could at all be called journalistic reasons.

White House-credentialed fake news reporter "Jeff Gannon" from fake news agency "Talon News" was cited by the Washington Post as having the only access to an internal CIA memo that named Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA agent. Gannon, in a question posed to Wilson in an October 2003 interview, referred to the memo (to which no other news outlet had access, according to the Post). Gannon subsequently has been subpoenaed by the federal grand jury looking into the Plame outing.

My goodness! I tried to tell them (and even had a pleasant back-and-forth with a Kossite last night) - you have almost no evidence of anything at all! The Washington Post did not say that Jeff Gannon had "exclusive" access to the memos; in fact, the entire memo was described, in detail, in the Wall Street Journal several weeks before Gannon demonstrated any knowledge of it.

Let's cover what they do have - "Jeff Gannon" really was subpoenaed by the Special Counsel investigating the Plame affair [Now I am as bad as the Times - "Gannon" was reported to have been subpoenaed, but he denies it - see UPDATE], along with a number of other reporters who had been involved in the early stages of the breaking story.

But did he have an "exclusive" look at some secret memo, as alleged by SusanG last week? Well, the Kos crowd did pay me a bit of heed, and their press release backs up quite a bit:

According to the Washington Post, Guckert may have had access to a leaked internal CIA memo which revealed the identity of Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, then an undercover CIA operative. In fact, because of his possible tie to the leak, Guckert was one of a small number to be subpoenaed to testify in the federal grand jury investigation into the matter.

Getting warmer! Gannon "may have had" access to a leaked document; he had a "possible" tie to the leak. Their late-breaking nuance was missed by both the Times, Josh Marshall, and the Kos himself, who tells us that "[Gannon] was receiving classified CIA documents". (Uhh, that would be INR documents, but whatever...). [The letter from Rep. Louise Slaughter must have been written by someone high on Kos Kool-Aid]

As to what really happened? Hey, maybe they are right, but hold on to those hedges and qualifiers a bit longer.

Here is a quick sequence - on Oct 17, the WSJ reported at length on the memo:

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Ms. Plame, a member of the agency's clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested at the meeting that her husband, Africa expert and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, could be sent to Niger to investigate the reports, according to current and former government officials familiar with the meeting at the CIA's Virginia headquarters. Soon after, midlevel CIA officials decided to send him, say intelligence officials.

Now, drawing on the fine work of the Kos group, we learn that Jeff Gannon interviewed Amb. Joseph Wilson following the Journal story:

At some point during the week leading up to October 28th, Gannon interviews Wilson by phone. The contents of that interview are astonishing.

TN [Talon News]: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?

That is astonishing. Read the Journal story, and the Gannon question, and you can almost hear his copy of the Journal rustling. Do I need to highlight the matching phrases?

So, the Alternative Explanation - Jeff Gannon reads the papers! That might explain why he has not been wacked with a contempt citation. It might also explain why he said this:

"I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration," Gannon told Talon News. "For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible."

"I don't know why I'm on the list of journalists being called before the Grand Jury," Gannon said. "I have been an outspoken critic of the leak probe and an aggressive questioner of the motives behind it. That seems to have drawn the attention of someone with the authority to issue subpoenas."

Well, in other forums Gannon has said other things. And why does he not just admit that he got his news from the Journal? Well, why should he admit it - the Special Counsel is ignoring him (we wonder why...), and pretending to be a Bold Reporter who is Bravely Protecting Sources may have a certain glam appeal. (I would fold up like a cheap suitcase in front of the Grand Jury myself, but I would never admit to that later. Well, unless you asked.)

Or maybe Gannon, the Journal, and others got this memo - that would be consistent with the WaPo account. Two WSJ reporters (Gigot and Hitt) were also subpoenaed - what is their status?

My guess - there is much less here than even the newer, calmer Kos Crew supposes. Maybe Gannon got the memo when some other folks did; I'll bet he reads the news. Time will tell.

MORE: Since we hold our journalists to a high standard of accuracy, is it fair to zip off an e-mail to the Times inquiring as to the evidence backing their lead sentence? What is their source for the news that Gannon "had access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative."

Perhaps the official position of the Times is that, since he was subpoenaed, he must have done something? Odd; one might expect them to be a bit more protective of journalists.

Or perhaps they have more evidence? One wonders what it might be.

Daniel Okrent will be delighted to ignore you: public@nytimes.com

UPDATE: "Gannon" / Guckert is interviewed by Editor and Publisher; keep those grains of salt handy, and here we go:

NEW YORK In a lengthy, wide-ranging interview
with E&P today, former White House reporter Jeff Gannon, whose real
name is James D. Guckert, revealed that, contrary to many media
reports, he has not been subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame/CIA case.

He also threw into question media accounts suggesting
that he had seen a classified CIA document critical to the Plame case,
saying he had made references to the “internal memo,” but adding, “I
never said I had it or had seen it.” But when asked if he had in fact
seen it, he declined to say.

...Guckert said that contrary to many press reports, he
was never subpoenaed by the special prosecutor and has never testified
before a grand jury in the case. But he said he was interviewed by two
FBI agents in his home for about 90 minutes last year.

"I answered their questions truthfully and honestly,
but I would prefer not to say more,” he said. “I assume the information
was routed back and that is why I was not called to testify."

Although he hinted that he had not seen a classified
CIA document after all, he added, "I am not going to speak to that. It
goes to something of a nature I do not want to discuss."

*IF* that is true, it is easy enough to imagine what he told the FBI. *IF*. (He might not be credible, right, Kos people?)

LATE UPDATE: Howard Kurtz of the WaPo wraps up the Eason Jordan and "Jeff Gannon" stories, but skips right past the Plame connection. Sort of odd, since the Times led with it, and two Dem congressfolks played it up. Not newsworthy, Howard? Or put another way, how can Kurtz and the Times both be right about what is newsworthy here?

And therein
lies the rub. If "Gannon" were getting zapped for simply
being a conservative reporter who filed boilerplate GOP
talking points as news, one could possibly have some
sympathy for him even if you find his views repugnant and
his hypocrisy intolerable. Yet the real issue at hand here
has to do with the name Blitzer failed to bring into the
conversation: Valerie Plame.

His personal blog is also quite helpful, and yes, he says it was the Kos Connection that linked Plame to "Gannon". Well, Mr. Pitt will enjoy the Kos press release.

"But what if Gannon was one of the "two people" serving as Cloud's sources (the other presumably being Karl Rove)? Oh who really gives a damn."

creepy dude

Well, if that is the case then he is the worst journalist in history. If he had access to the memo (which was devistating to Wilson's story) and did nothing but feed it to the WSJ. Then he turned around and used it himself 2 weeks after passing it along to someone else. Why not break the story himself instead of giving it to the WSJ? Of course, that could all be part of the plan, but that seems a little convoluted.

The simple answer is that he read the WSJ, picked up the bit about the memo, and then used it 11 days later when he interviewed Wilson. If the WaPo wanted to credit him with having the memo, why would he deny it publicly? It just helped build up his image as an important player in the Washington game. That's how the game is played, right?

Concur that the "internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel" sounds suspiciously like the INR report that's been at the heart of the investigation since the beginning--and was most likely the initial source of Novak's information:

A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger--a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.

The bad news for the conspiracy theorists is that, assuming it's as described, leaking it clearly does not violate the section on disclosing covert operatives (though ironically, it may violate the section on divulging diplomatic codes--which Wilson's initial op-ed may also have run afoul of--but a successful prosecution in either case seems remote).

If we are talking about the same memo that provided Novak's initial story, and it's been floating around for a while (as the WaPo article suggests), the whole Kos feeding frenzy was fairly ridiculous. Watching them leap from one unwarranted conclusion to another (e.g., "CIA memo" to "Administration plant") was entertaining, but not very educational. The end result seems to've been outing a marginally qualified gay reporter. It's more interesting that the Times (and Marshall, and Reps Conyers and Slaughter) apparently consider the Kosmonauts a reliable source.

Whether there was an actual conflict of interest or not, there would certainly be an appearance of impropriety if the AG were to conduct an investigation of the Administration that appointed him. Not surprisingly, that's the story he's telling:

"The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance. And I can't go beyond that," Comey said at a news conference.

"What the hell is the special prosecutor actually doing?"

Looks to me like he's been spending a lot of effort tracking down how various news sources got information from the INR memo.

Lawyers and witnesses in the probe said Fitzgerald is interested in a story co-written by Pincus that appeared in The Post on Oct. 12, 2003. That story said that on July 12, 2003, two days before Novak's column was published, an administration official told a Post reporter that Wilson's wife had recommended him for the trip to Niger. The official said she was a CIA employee but did not disclose her name. An attorney for The Post declined to comment.

And again, if that's the source, it's hard to see how the covert agent statute would apply. Of course, I'm sure you could provide less charitable answers to the above, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the more sinister interpretations. (Most of which rely on the word of Amb Wilson, whose credibility on the subject is less than sterling.)

Excellent job unraveling the Angry Left's memo-envy, or fill-in-the-blank-gate. I just hope Gannon takes certain lefty bloggers to the bank, as they seem unaware you can't smear & slander private citizens the way you can politicians.

My understanding is the CIA sends about 50 such referrals to Justice a year, i.e. where it believes intelligence has been compromised. So of about 200 since Bush took office-only this one morphs into a a special counsel inquiry. Interesting.

"So of about 200 since Bush took office-only this one morphs into a a special counsel inquiry. Interesting."

Not really. How many of the others credibly alleged involvement of "senior Administration officials?" Again, there's at least the appearance of impropriety if the AG investigates the White House, so he should recuse himself.

"Again, I'm just glad Bush promised to get to the bottom of it."

Sounds a lot like "confess comrade" to me. I'd suggest he let the special counsel handle it, especially if the verdict is: no crime committed.

The E&P interview also apparently clears up the issue of why the White House issued press passes under an "assumed" name. Gannon supposedly provided his real and his "work" name to the White House when requesting the passes.

They're left with having outed a gay man (although the E&P interview steers away from that subject), who registered some websites.

Yes but that's exactly the point. How many "senior administration officials" are there?

Why would Bush hire a personal attorney and let Rove, Powell and whoever else waste time testifying to a grand jury if he is satisfied that all of his senior officials did nothing wrong? Just tell whoever it who talked to Novak to identify themselves and explain themselves. Case closed.

I don't know anything myself. I just can't believe that it would have got to this point if something wasn't fishy.

"Yes but that's exactly the point. How many "senior administration officials" are there?"

Depends on what you mean by "senior." But that's not the point. The point is that the accusation is enough to trigger a conflict of interest (and recusal)--even if there's nothing substantive.

"Just tell whoever it who talked to Novak to identify themselves and explain themselves. Case closed."

[Snort.] Riiiight. I suspect the vast majority of the left--including all the tinfoil hat crowd overrepresented at DKos--aren't going to accept a negative finding from Fitzgerald (assuming that's what happens). Suggesting they'd accept one from whoever contacted Novak (assuming that happened) is clearly not on.

" I don't know anything myself. I just can't believe that it would have got to this point if something wasn't fishy."

The problem with the Kos Kidz is that everything is a conspiracy to them ... bulge on Bush's back, stolen elections, planted reporters, bloggers working for the CIA. It's not just the average uneducated leftist, but college professors and so-called "academics". Hollywood has really done a number on those guys. It's only a matter of time before we start hearing about alien visitations at the Whitehouse.

Not quite. I'm saying that if the INR memo was the source, then no crime was committed (AFAICT). And if so, there's no point in the President saying anything, since his statement would rightly be perceived as self-serving. Mr Fitzgerald's, however, will be more acceptable to most Americans. (As to the Kossers, my belief is that they'll never accept a negative finding from anyone, as I thought I'd made clear.)

I did absolutely nothing wrong tonight. But I can't say that-too self serving. So to prove it-let's have a special prosecutor appointed, a grand jury convened, and a months long investigation, so that, in the end, the special prosecutor can announce that I have, in fact, done nothing wrong tonight.

FWIW Wilson had nothing to do with starting this investigation. The CIA did. Furthermore, if anyone is to blame it's the "senior administration officials" blabbing to Novak. That's what I meant by kicking employee ass- either way, i.e. if they didn't commit a crime they wasted valuable resources.

Glad you believe Fitzgerald's statement "will be more acceptable most Americans" than Bush's. For me, the statement of a person selected at random from the Topeka phonebook would be more acceptable than the Presidents.

But since you've got the case solved-it was the INR memo in the library was it?-here's Fitzgerald's address and phone. Call him up and explain it to him-I'm sure he'd like to get back to more productive work:

"For me, the statement of a person selected at random from the Topeka phonebook would be more acceptable than the Presidents."

Yeah, I think we got that from the "guilty until proven innocent" stuff. But if he were to "Just tell whoever it who talked to Novak to identify themselves and explain themselves," the "Case [would be] closed." [Chortle.]

"FWIW Wilson had nothing to do with starting this investigation."

Riiight. And his very public accusations that the leak must have come from a close advisor to the President had absolutely nothing to do with creating an apparent conflict-of-interest with the AG either, eh?

"But since you've got the case solved-it was the INR memo in the library was it?-here's Fitzgerald's address and phone."

Not really necessary, I think Fitzgerald's already on it. But hey, smart guy, maybe you can come up with a plausible scenario in which there was an actual crime committed? Like explain to me how anyone at the White House got access to Plame's identity in the first place, if it wasn't from the INR memo? Or, if the source was the INR memo--which identifies Plame as a CIA agent, but not her covert status--how you get around the part of the statute that requires knowledge of her covert status?

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [emphasis added]

Hmm, dunno. Some time after the facts of the case showed a conflict that could reasonably be expected to lead to an impropriety (or appearance of one)? And if the follow-up paperwork on the referral was completed in late September/early October, maybe . . . December? To be sure, some Democrats were calling for one earlier (e.g., from Oct 1) :

Democrats in Congress demanded that Ashcroft appoint a special counsel to avert any conflict of interest. "This is not just a leak, this is a crime - plain and simple," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.), describing the leak as a "kneecapping."

It looks like Sen Schumer agrees with your punishment-followed-by-a-trial approach. And hey, how are you coming with the scenario of an actual crime? Or does the defense now bear the burden of proving the defendant innocent without even having a charge to refer to?

"Please answer before googling the truth."

Since I linked the recusal story in an earlier comment, do you think there's maybe a slight possibility that I'd actually read it, and didn't need to google?

"As for the statute-I think Fitzgerald is looking more into 18 U.S.C. 793- the Espionage Act."

Section 793? Seems a bit of a stretch to call Plame's identity a matter of "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," doesn't it? Seems to me Section 794 would be more applicable, but even that requires it be a national defense issue, which is a tough sell.

"Again, there's at least the appearance of impropriety if the AG investigates the White House, so he should recuse himself."

If that's the proper criteria, then Ashcroft should have recused himself immediately upon the referral from the CIA. Instead, he personally recused himself only after reviewing preliminary results of the investigation. The Attorney General's OFFICE is indeed investigating the White House. Thus, a U.S. Attorney interrogated the President for over an hour.

Why does that not represent a conflict of interest? Fitzgerald is Bush's employee.

I see no value in arguing statutory interpretation. We'll leave that to Bush's employee. later.

It never fails to amaze me that so many people have no clear idea how an administration works. The government isn't a homogeneous monolithic block consisting of a single political entity. There are appointed positions, that generally but not always goes to the reigning political party, and there are career positions held by non-political executives. Thus when someone uses the term "senior government official" it can literally mean anything. Or must I explain why George Tenet wasn't a Republican.

whatever.

Frankly this whole witchhunt against Gannon/Guckert has yet to be fully played out. A lot of really libelous things have been printed and I'm not certain at all if "New York Times vs. Sullivan" is going to cover it. Particularly since Kos, I believe, did an interview with Howard Kurtz that basically torpedoed any such "malicious" defense. I'm going to wait for the enormous out of cour settlement or a visible trial where Daily Kos, Atrios and crew get Racked.

Might be amusing if Guckert demanded ownership of the www.dailykos.com website as part of the settlement.

At any rate it's pretty obvious that there's some sort of juvenile penis-comparison thing going on between the lefty bloggers and the right. Not that there's any sort of participation by the righty bloggers in this, but you can see that there's something driving the lefty bloggers and that's a desire for scalps of their own. It's a shame that they attacked a guy for pretty much no reason but I'm sure it'll backfire on them pretty badly.

Somewhere out in America is a legal team chortling to themselves as they lay out the case.

"If that's the proper criteria, then Ashcroft should have recused himself immediately upon the referral from the CIA."

Well, Schumer would appear to agree with you. I'd say it would be more prudent to wait until the investigation credibly indicated a leak might actually have come from the White House. Or is "unforgivable waste of resources" no longer an issue?

"I see no value in arguing statutory interpretation."

I can see why you wouldn't, especially if your best evidence is: he-must-be-guilty-because-the-AG-recused-himself. But IMHO, if you're going to allege a crime, you really ought to specify one.

ed,

"A lot of really libelous things have been printed and I'm not certain at all if "New York Times vs. Sullivan" is going to cover it."

I'd love to see it, but recent history suggests a successful lawsuit from a public figure is practically impossible. I agree with you (and Pat above) that there's nothing praiseworthy in outing Gannon/Guckert, but neither was his double identity something that could be expected to hold up--it simply wasn't compatible with his WH reporting career.

The same could probably be said for Amb Wilson's editorial fame and his wife's NOC cover.

"Schumer would agree with you. The criteria I'm referring to is yours when you said:

"Again, there's at least the appearance of impropriety if the AG investigates the White House, so he should recuse himself."" [emphasis added]

You, like Schumer, suggest it's a given that the White House was the source of the leak. In fact, the most likely source of a covert agent's identity was CIA (nobody else would be expected to have a list of agents' identities). Only after the investigation credibly pointed to the information originating from the White House would there be a conflict sufficient for the AG's recusal. (And unfortunately for the tinfoil hat crowd, it also suggests that if a crime was committed, it wasn't outing a covert agent.)

"Now whether anyone violated a statute or will ever be busted (two separtate issues) I have no idea"

Well if the answer to the first is "no," it becomes one issue, doesn't it? And if so, the whole thing is pretty much a collossal waste of time and resources, wouldn't you say?

It occurs to me that prior to Ashcroft's recusal, a theory on the left was that Ashcroft was orchestrating the cover-up; in this view, the recusal ocurred after the case had been properly sanitized, so that Fitzgerald could come in as Mr. Clean and eventually announce that there was nothing to be seen.

IN that world, an early recusal would have been evidence of a crime; a delayed recusal was evidence of a crime; and no recusal would have been *proof* of a crime.

For myself, I have no problem with the idea that they kicked it around for a few months, finally realized there were no easy or obvious answers, and Ashcroft recused himself to avoid an appearance of conflict.

Maybe there is a real conflict, and a real crime, and the case is red-hot? Maybe. Not a lot of indications of that, and plenty of reason to think otherwise, but who knows?

Or, (let's get sinister) let's suppose that in reality, the WH are the goons that the Left imagines. But smarter - like, smart enough to deliberately out somebody in an act of revenge but cover their tracks.

IN that case, this investigation could take forever, or stall out and die. But keep hope alive - if Fitzgerald closes up shop with no indictments, that does not exonerate anyone, so we can pretend for years that this leak was a ghastly outrage against all decency.

creepy dude said "Why does that not represent a conflict of interest? Fitzgerald is Bush's employee.

I see no value in arguing statutory interpretation. We'll leave that to Bush's employee. later."

Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't work for the President. He works for the people of the United States. He is an officer of the law, appointed by the Senators representing the State of Illinois, to prosecute the violators of the law. His appointment of special counsel was made by Deputy AG James Comey.

As early as October 2003 experts on special prosecutors, like Wake Forest Poli Sci Professor Katy Harriger, were questioning the need for special counsel at the stage of the investigation.

Since you think that Fitzgerald is "Bush's employee" why don't you contact his office and ask him what he thinks of that assertion.

I still like observing the Bush critics through the colorful words of Seymour Hersh when is telling an audience at the Steven Wise Reform Synagogue in Brooklyn that the government is currently being run by an "8 or 9 member cult". He's not sure how they do it, but he's sure they are doing it. Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald is warming up in the cult's bullpen.

"I'd love to see it, but recent history suggests a successful lawsuit from a public figure is practically impossible. I agree with you (and Pat above) that there's nothing praiseworthy in outing Gannon/Guckert, but neither was his double identity something that could be expected to hold up--it simply wasn't compatible with his WH reporting career."

*shrug* I don't think Guckert fulfills the definition of a "public figure" at all. As for the "outing", there's no evidence at all that there's anything to out. And a pen name is hardly a double identity. How long did it take Duncan Black to correctly identify himself? How many bloggers write under a pen name?

I think substantial damage has been done and there's going to be no easy out for anyone involved in it.

Well now, if Kevin Drum called all the anti-Krugman (He *is* an economics god, after all)bullshit then you might as well give up. I mean, next only to Krugman, Drum is an economics god, and who would know the truth better than he? (And Krugman and MoDo, of course.)

"*shrug* I don't think Guckert fulfills the definition of a "public figure" at all."

Oh, I was assuming he did. If not, I agree with you completely. If so, I don't see him having much of a chance in court . . . I wonder if we can get a ruling from someone whose area of expertise this is?

"As for the "outing", there's no evidence at all that there's anything to out."

Not claiming any particular knowledge, my impression from the news stories (and his E&P bit), was that it was the personal stuff that made him resign. (Especially the web sites he helped set up that apparently never got going.) Reynolds summed it up nicely:

I also agree with Kurtz that it was the stuff about Gannon's personal life that led to his resignation, and that there's something rather sleazy about that.

creepy dude writes: "Myself, I'm all for an INDEPENDENT counsel, like we would have already if this was a democratic administration. "

Obviously creepy dude has forgotten that the Democrats decided that an independant counsel statute that bites Democrats as well as Republicans was defective. The statute was allowed to lapse during the Clinton administration. There is no longer independant counsels. Accordingly, creepy dude's claim that there would be one if this was a democratic administration is rather obviously false.

Cecil Turner: Guckert cited the information gathering conducted into his background that had members of his extended family being questioned about him. In his interview with Wolf Blitzer he said that his parents, siblings were getting called about him and that people were showing up at his home in Delaware.

This is Guckert's word on the events so it is difficult to guage the veracity of them. However, if we are to assume they are true, then a resignation would be obvious. Perhaps a reporter with a multi-million dollar media company like the Washington Post or NY Times could confront a personal investigation that reaches into their reporters' extended families.

As far as Guckert's credibility goes, what was originally thought to have been false credentials to enter the White House turned about to be accurate credentials with the request that he be identified as Jeff Gannon. He's no Mark Twain, but Mark Twain wasn't even Mark Twain. He was Samuel Clemons.

Brennan Stout-WTF are you talking about that U.S. Attorneys are appointed by Senators? They are tools of the Executive branch. Clinton fired every one of them when he assumed office (save one)-please tell me how the law has changed since then.

Robin Roberts-you actually are correct. I forgot that.

Capt Joe-WTF are you talking about period?

I had just graciously allowed Cecil Turner to have the last word, and then all you wingnuts crawl out of the shadows.

"Guckert cited the information gathering conducted into his background that had members of his extended family being questioned about him. In his interview with Wolf Blitzer he said that his parents, siblings were getting called about him and that people were showing up at his home in Delaware."

Thanks Brennan, I saw that but it didn't ring true as the whole story--especially since a hard-hitting news reporter should thrive on controversy. Again with no particular knowledge, the stuff about helping set up the porn sites looked more embarrassing, he was defensive about further digging into his personal life, and I tend to believe that's a bigger reason. At any rate, he apparently relied on his pseudonym working, and since it got penetrated by the folks at DKos, I still think his approach was unsustainable.

According to a subsequent Talon News story by Bobby Eberle regarding the Washington Post piece, "The Washington Post cites an unnamed source who says, 'The CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets.' They point to a memo referenced in a Talon News interview of Wilson that suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa."

Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence.

"I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration," Gannon told Talon News. "For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible."

Kos' blind ambition and need to be noticed have taken a big hit lately with all Markos' pet projects crashing and burning. He has seen an opportunity to recoup his losses and reputation and get some of the limelight back on him and has gone full tilt boogie on this very shaky, flaky story. It is going crash and burn too, BIGTIME! And when it does, we'll have Kos to thank for the rotten reputation it will give the blogs for years to come. The MSM will be dancing in the streets when Kos, singlehandedly with this insane vendetta against Gannon, wrecks the reputation many of the good blogs have. The MSM has been looking for a way to discredit blogs which are hurting their prestige. If this goes badly, as I fear it may, it won't just be Kos going down; it will be all of us. We'll be poison for the foreseeable future.

creepy dude said "WTF are you talking about that U.S. Attorneys are appointed by Senators? They are tools of the Executive branch. Clinton fired every one of them when he assumed office (save one)-please tell me how the law has changed since then."

Long standing Senate Privilege holds that Senators nominate attorneys to become United States attorneys within their districts. The President does indeed nominate United States Attorneys, but Senate Privilege retains the power for Senators to place a hold on a nominee.

Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment was presented by Senator Peter Fitzgerald(no relation). It was supported by Senator Dick Durbin. It was supported by the President.

As much as you wish to believe - as is likely you have already convinced yourself - President Bush is not President Nixon.
/end

Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence.

Eva Young: The Washington Post appears to have made a mistake considering the David Cloud piece in the Wall Street Journal. In other reports, Gannon says that he would not reveal his sources which led to the further rumoring that he was protecting someone in the administration. This was a jump to the conclusion that he had in fact seen the memo. But, as seen above in TM's commentary, it's likely Gannon "read the papers".

foreign devil: I don't connect very well with Daily Kos. However, it was not Markos conducting any of this investigation. This was diary users at Daily Kos. I understand that the anonymous nature of the diaries permits veteran oppo researchers to publish the work they could never attach their names to, but that's the Internet for you.

If Markos did anything over at Daily Kos it was a bunch of "Yea, what he/she said".

Why does ANYONE listen to The Daily Kos? It's nothing but a left wingers to rant about how bad Republicans are. So they got the Gannon story wrong and destroyed a man's reputation in the process (he's a gay male prostitute who leaks classified documents and outs undercover CIA operatives). Nice. Well let's not forget how Kos got Rather-gate wrong (he was sure the documents were real), missed the Eason Jordan story, loves Micheal Moore, and supported nothing but losing candidates (Dean, Kerry, the Koz Dozen) in the last election. Has he been correct yet?

I think the primary reason why Guckert resigned is that he's really not a hard-core journalist. Seriously. How many hard-core journalists ever worked for a software company recently? I can't say that I've dug very deeply, I really don't care all *that* much about this, but it really sounds like the guy weighed the pro and con arguments and found the pro ones wanting.

Then again I'd like for someone to point out any recent, within the last decade, journalist who has had to deal with people taking a Roto-Rooter to his/her life and family. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but I can't think of a single one.

I kinda wonder now if any journalist would put up with the kind of abuse this guy has taken.

Just to make things clear - I wasn't addressing the WaPo story, I was making the point that SusanG at Kos took her information second hand from Talon News - and yes, since she generally doesn't trust that source, it's ironic that she took this story - which confirmed something she wanted to believe - at face value.

Let's imagine that Clinton were in office, and say, sometime during the Kosovo situation it had come to light that a male hooker had been regularly admitted to the press office in a manner to evade the normal certification procedures.

Then let's further imagine that the hooker was working for a Democratic partisan group financed by people in Arkansas with long-standing ties to Clinton's prior campaigns. And let's further imagine that the hooker, while posing as a reporter, had been involved in the calculated smear of the spouse of one of Clinton's harshest critics, and that the smear had involved blowing the cover of a CIA agent.

And then let's further imagine that the hooker specialized in the wearing of military uniforms.

Now tell me that Fox News and CNN and every other network and newspaper wouldn't have been all over this story.

Eva, I think you steered the LostKos Comedy Club away from a full train wreck on this one - Susan G did catch the mistake eventually, and the Kos press release was desperately watered down. And I really do have a bit of solidarity with any of my fellow bloggers who are willing to do the research and actually look at the evidence.

However, the timing was hard luck for the folks who missed the last memo, so it still gives folks like me (and, well, me, too) a chance to mock the NY Times (which is my life's blood.)

I'm not sure the Kos folks missed a train wreck, though EY may have kept the derailed cars from falling off the cliff.

It seems to me the main point they missed was not connecting the dots between the much-discussed INR memo and the "internal CIA memo." Or, as pithily phrased by TM:

I will boldly guess that the INR analyst's meeting notes referred to by the Senate Subcommittee are closely related to the memo described by the WSJ and the WaPo.

With that piece of information in hand, as well as the later revelations that it had been communicated to the President's Africa trip entourage (sometime during the week of 6-12 July 2003--suspiciously coincident to Novak's initial column hitting the wires on 11 July 03):

A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report . . .that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.

It'd have then been obvious all three stories were likely talking about the source of the initial leak, not some later damage control, and that Gannon had asbolutely nothing new to add (except perhaps that information from the INR memo was still out there a couple months after the initial leak). And considering he essentially quoted the WSJ verbatim when describing it (and mis-characterized it as a "confidential CIA memo"), it'd be logical to conclude he never actually saw it. You'd hope that'd have led them to conclude there was no story here, and dampened the zeal somewhat for chasing through his personal life.